2016 (9) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I. The impugned order has held that these two appellants are not independent units during 2000-2001 and their value of clearances is to be clubbed for deciding on the eligibility of SSI exemption during the said period of 2001-2002. The impugned order holds that M/s. MMPL is the main unit and M/s. AMMPL was created to avail the benefit of SSI exemption. 2. Both the appellants have been represented by ld. Advocate, Shri B.L. Narsimhan, who has inter alia submitted as follows: (i) The appellants factories are in different premises, which are adjacent to each other. (ii) They are holding separate individual registrations with the Central Excise Department. (iii) They ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of interest in each other, which the facts as pointed out in the impugned order makes very clear. The impugned order points out that their separation has been created artificially with an intention to avail the benefit of SSI exemption only. The impugned order points out in its para-20 that the MOU signed between the two appellants does not have vital details. The impugned order mentions in para-20 that "there cannot be a rent agreement without details, area and specification of the property to be given on rent between two independent companies/ persons but it can be possible only in the case of related parties. Similarly in the case of Point D Storage Godown no area or capacity of godown has been mentioned in the MOU. Thus, I fin....